AW: The order of basses! (was:Double frets)
Hey arto, i assume, that this changed high/low octave position equilizes (perhaps)the strong low/high octave effect with the alternating thumb/index technique. In this way the index-beat is more bass-pronounced than in our "normal" bass/octave order. W. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Arto Wikla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juni 2005 08:32 An: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: The order of basses! (was:Double frets) Hi all, > it seems that the pics are still online. > www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html In the other painting in that page (Holbein, Berlin) there is something quite intreresting, too, http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors-Seiten/Bild8.html The high octave of the 6th string is clearly in the out position! Just as is the habit with the renaissance guitar. It means that campanella becomes easy. And also the holding hand suggests using left hand thumb for fretting the bass? (At least I easily leave my hand to the playing position, when I hold my 6 course lute as the man in the painting.) This string placing is something I must try! Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
The order of basses! (was:Double frets)
Hi all, > it seems that the pics are still online. > www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html In the other painting in that page (Holbein, Berlin) there is something quite intreresting, too, http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors-Seiten/Bild8.html The high octave of the 6th string is clearly in the out position! Just as is the habit with the renaissance guitar. It means that campanella becomes easy. And also the holding hand suggests using left hand thumb for fretting the bass? (At least I easily leave my hand to the playing position, when I hold my 6 course lute as the man in the painting.) This string placing is something I must try! Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Peter, I have to now admit you, Sean, and Kenneth have got me pretty excited to try this. I hope to try this out tomorrow and will report back. I take back all those horrible things I said about Dowland. However I do think the Painting show more single frets than double. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Peter Weiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:34 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a > remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial > pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good > measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less > tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or > solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is > actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is > articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to > moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better English > than I will jump in here! > > - Peter > > " Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe > to > say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so > much? > What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use > them > thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, > Wilson, > Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? > Michael Thames" > > -- > ___ > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on >St. Paddy's >day. >Sean Sean, No I'm not worried about the tied frets> I tie these really tight. What I meant was when you press down a course onto the fret, the course has a tendency to slide around a bit, I was thinking that more actual contact surface would help this a bit? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lutelist" Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > Would it be safe to > > say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so > > much? > > I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's > day. > > Sean > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Stability is good word. Somehow, too, it requires less effort. W/ a single fret you feel the string bend behind the fret and you want to touch bottom. I remember playing an orpharion w/ scalloped frets and it seems to take these ideas to the next level. Bending the string behind the fret would severely sharpen the metal strings as well as wear down the brass frets and that's the reasoning behind that, I suppose. Having the fret area more spread out over the string means less wear on a single point. This is good for both small diameter gut strings as well as the roped bass beasties. Only recently (March) in my fretting experiment did I switch to doubled frets for frets 5-8 and I immediately found it easier to get clean notes up there. Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: > I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a > remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial > pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good > measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less > tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or > solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is > actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is > articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to > moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better > English > than I will jump in here! > > - Peter > > " Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe > to > say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so > much? > What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use > them > thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, > Wilson, > Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? > Michael Thames" > > -- > ___ > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I have played a six course lute double-fretted, single strand of fret going around the neck twice, with the fretting carefully selected and tied by the lute's maker Ray Nurse, for many years. The gut frets, with all gut strings on the lute, has lasted so well that I have only had to have the instrument refretted once in 12 years of continuous use of the lute. The very slight and gentle "fizz" on the sound of the fretted notes is attractive to me and characteristic of the sound of this lute. I think Capirola even refers to this effect in his instructions. The key thing seems to be to have a very low action, a low nut, and very thin diameters for the double frets. They grade minimally from down the neck. Double fretting is frequent in depictions in paintings and prints throughout the sixteenth century and well into the seventeenth century. It even occurs in Laurent de la Hyre's Allegory of Music (Metropolitan Museum of Art) theorbe player. I also enjoy single frets which I have on my other two six course lutes. Kenneth Be -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better English than I will jump in here! - Peter " Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames" -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> Would it be safe to > say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so > much? I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's day. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, >double frets are >very, very nice to use on lutes. I've had some trouble >getting a >double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like >Sean's >idea of using independent frets side-by-side. This makes >them easy to >tie and allows one to change only the worn one when >needed, as well as >allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in >the pair. MT, >I would second the recommendation that you give them a >try. >-Peter Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Peter Weiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 5:53 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are > very, very nice to use on lutes. I've had some trouble getting a > double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's > idea of using independent frets side-by-side. This makes them easy to > tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as > allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair. MT, > I would second the recommendation that you give them a try. > > -Peter > > -- > ___ > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are very, very nice to use on lutes. I've had some trouble getting a double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's idea of using independent frets side-by-side. This makes them easy to tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair. MT, I would second the recommendation that you give them a try. -Peter -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I think that double frets are considered commonplace among our very near cousins in the HIP viol crowd, so we shouldn't be surprised to find that they were used on lutes of the same period. - Peter - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" To: Lutelist Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:25:48 -0700 > > > Thanks Gernot! And Peter, I knew there was another Holbein that > depicted double frets. I just couldn't remember which. > thank you. > > Concerning the Poulton/Dowland image. Perhaps it was overkill to double > the frets on a small lute. So far it hasn't been worth it to "double > up" on my descant. > > Sean > > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: > > > Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite > > different lute, also shows clear doubles. > > > > - Peter > > > > " I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in > > clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's > > it > > still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom." > > > > -- ___ > > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > > > > > -- > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm --
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Thanks Gernot! And Peter, I knew there was another Holbein that depicted double frets. I just couldn't remember which. thank you. Concerning the Poulton/Dowland image. Perhaps it was overkill to double the frets on a small lute. So far it hasn't been worth it to "double up" on my descant. Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: > Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite > different lute, also shows clear doubles. > > - Peter > > " I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved > in > clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's > it > still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom." > > -- > ___ > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite different lute, also shows clear doubles. - Peter " I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom." -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Very interesting, this very clearly shows double frets, and yet I don't see this kind of detail on 90% of other pictures. One example is the well known painting of the female lutenist on the cover of Diana Poultion's complete Dowland, clearly single frets. I could go on and on.. yet the evidence for DF exists in only one painting? are there more paintings? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Gernot Hilger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lutelist" Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:48 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > Sean and all, > > it seems that the pics are still online. > > www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html > > Enjoy! > g > > > > On 20.06.2005, at 00:44, Sean Smith wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my > > hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you > > one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no > > uncertainty there. > > > > Gernot? > > > > Sean > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > > > > >>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone > >>> > >> through > >> > >>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one > >>> that > >>> seems > >>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the > >>> perfect > >>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it > >>> some > >>> > >> time. > >> > >>> Nice try... > >>> > >> > >> Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how > >> large > >> of a > >> spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there > >> is not > >> even a hint of what looks like two frets together. > >> And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double > >> fret > >> looks like. > >> > >> Michael Thames > >> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Lute Net" > >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM > >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > >> > >> > >> > >>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone > >>> > >> through > >> > >>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that > >>> seems > >>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the > >>> perfect > >>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it > >>> some > >>> > >> time. > >> > >>> Nice try... > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" > >>> ; "Lute builder Net" > >>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Martyn, > Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page > appears to > me > > >> to > >> > >>> have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for > >>> > >> diameters, > >> > >>> in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm > >>> wide and > >>> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This > >>> means > >>> > >> that > >> > >>> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on > >>> these > >>> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of > >>> these > >>> lutes. > >>> > On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows > > >> double > >> > >>> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. > >>> > I'm sure your familiar with this site. > http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: Martyn Hodgson > To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > Michael, > > Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over > stuff > > >>> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the > >>> archives. > >>> > > However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient > detail > > >> in > >> > >>> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it > >>> was > >>> > >> as > >> > >>> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils > >>> those > >>> trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to > >>> > >> estimate > >> > >>> historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with > >>> sufficient > >>> photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. > >>> I'd > >>> be > >>> grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this > >>> sort of > >>> requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>Michael, >Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the >Ambassadors on my >hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he >could send you >one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is >no >uncertainty there. >Gernot? >Sean Sean, I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lutelist" Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > Michael, > Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my > hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you > one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no > uncertainty there. > > Gernot? > > Sean > > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > >> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone > > through > >> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one that > >> seems > >> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the > >> perfect > >> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it some > > time. > >> Nice try... > > > > Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large > > of a > > spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there > > is not > > even a hint of what looks like two frets together. > > And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double > > fret > > looks like. > > > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Lute Net" > > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM > > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > > >> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone > > through > >> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that > >> seems > >> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the > >> perfect > >> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some > > time. > >> Nice try... > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" > >> ; "Lute builder Net" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM > >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Martyn, > >>> Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to > >>> me > > to > >> have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for > > diameters, > >> in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm > >> wide and > >> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means > > that > >> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on > >> these > >> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of > >> these > >> lutes. > >>> On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows > > double > >> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. > >>>I'm sure your familiar with this site. > >>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html > >>> Michael Thames > >>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: Martyn Hodgson > >>> To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net > >>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > >>> > >>> > >>> Michael, > >>> > >>> Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over > >>> stuff > >> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the > >> archives. > >>> > >>> However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient > >>> detail > > in > >> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it > >> was > > as > >> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils > >> those > >> trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to > > estimate > >> historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient > >> photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd > >> be > >> grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of > >> requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. > >>> > >>> Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is > >>> higher > > up > >> the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the > >> pitch; > >> the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, > >> there is > >> no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. > >>> > >>> If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - > >> you'll be pleasantly surpised. > >>> > >>> re
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Sean and all, it seems that the pics are still online. www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html Enjoy! g On 20.06.2005, at 00:44, Sean Smith wrote: > > Michael, > Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my > hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you > one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no > uncertainty there. > > Gernot? > > Sean > > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > >>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone >>> >> through >> >>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one >>> that >>> seems >>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the >>> perfect >>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it >>> some >>> >> time. >> >>> Nice try... >>> >> >> Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how >> large >> of a >> spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there >> is not >> even a hint of what looks like two frets together. >> And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double >> fret >> looks like. >> >> Michael Thames >> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Lute Net" >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets >> >> >> >>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone >>> >> through >> >>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that >>> seems >>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the >>> perfect >>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it >>> some >>> >> time. >> >>> Nice try... >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" >>> ; "Lute builder Net" >>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets >>> >>> >>> Martyn, Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me >> to >> >>> have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for >>> >> diameters, >> >>> in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm >>> wide and >>> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This >>> means >>> >> that >> >>> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on >>> these >>> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of >>> these >>> lutes. >>> On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows >> double >> >>> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. >>> I'm sure your familiar with this site. http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff >>> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the >>> archives. >>> However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail >> in >> >>> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it >>> was >>> >> as >> >>> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils >>> those >>> trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to >>> >> estimate >> >>> historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with >>> sufficient >>> photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. >>> I'd >>> be >>> grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this >>> sort of >>> requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. >>> Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher >> up >> >>> the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the >>> pitch; >>> the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, >>> there is >>> no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. >>> If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - >>> you'll be pleasantly surpised. >>> regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martyn wrote, > The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally > >>> used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute >>> Dyphone - >>> >> a >> >>> combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of >>> frequent >>> do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be >>> tak
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Michael, Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no uncertainty there. Gernot? Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: >> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone > through >> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one that >> seems >> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the >> perfect >> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it some > time. >> Nice try... > > Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large > of a > spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there > is not > even a hint of what looks like two frets together. > And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double > fret > looks like. > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lute Net" > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > >> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone > through >> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that >> seems >> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the >> perfect >> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some > time. >> Nice try... >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" >> ; "Lute builder Net" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets >> >> >>> >>> Martyn, >>> Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to >>> me > to >> have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for > diameters, >> in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm >> wide and >> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means > that >> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on >> these >> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of >> these >> lutes. >>> On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows > double >> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. >>>I'm sure your familiar with this site. >>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html >>> Michael Thames >>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Martyn Hodgson >>> To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net >>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets >>> >>> >>> Michael, >>> >>> Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over >>> stuff >> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the >> archives. >>> >>> However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient >>> detail > in >> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it >> was > as >> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils >> those >> trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to > estimate >> historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient >> photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd >> be >> grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of >> requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. >>> >>> Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is >>> higher > up >> the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the >> pitch; >> the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, >> there is >> no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. >>> >>> If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - >> you'll be pleasantly surpised. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Martyn Hodgson >>> >>> >>> Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally >> used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute >> Dyphone - > a >> combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent >> do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken >> off' >>> 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, >>> when > it >> comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop >>> >>> Martyn, >>> In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing >> double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I >> haven't >> seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through >> the >> iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as yo
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone through >this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one that seems >singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the perfect >place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it some time. >Nice try... Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large of a spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there is not even a hint of what looks like two frets together. And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double fret looks like. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through > this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems > singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect > place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. > Nice try... > > > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" > ; "Lute builder Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > > > Martyn, > > Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to > have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, > in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and > that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that > the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these > lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these > lutes. > > On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double > frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. > >I'm sure your familiar with this site. > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: Martyn Hodgson > > To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net > > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM > > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > > > Michael, > > > > Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff > which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. > > > > However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in > to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as > much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those > trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate > historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient > photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be > grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of > requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. > > > > Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up > the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; > the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is > no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. > > > > If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - > you'll be pleasantly surpised. > > > > regards, > > > > Martyn Hodgson > > > > > > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Martyn wrote, > > >The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally > used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute Dyphone - a > combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent > do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' > >'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, when it > comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop > > > > Martyn, > > In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing > double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't > seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the > iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, > one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen > one modern lute with these either. > >I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it > probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. > > > > The only possible way that double frets could work is if the > fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the > string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have > big intonation problems. > > > >
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... - Original Message - From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" ; "Lute builder Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > Martyn, > Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. > On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. >I'm sure your familiar with this site. > http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: Martyn Hodgson > To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > Michael, > > Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. > > However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. > > Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. > > If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. > > regards, > > Martyn Hodgson > > > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Martyn wrote, > >The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' >'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop > > Martyn, > In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. >I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. > > The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. > >As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness. > > > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: Martyn Hodgson > To: Michael Thames > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:11 AM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop. > > This matter has been the
Arm Viols update -- two months later
Greetings -- Keepers of the early Fretted-Fourths Legacy After two months of hunting (the web only), I can report that the catch has been very good, much better than I would have imagined -- the net is full. It's turns out that nearly all 16th century viols smaller that bass sized, were, and from the very start, played either horizontally (neck out to the left, ala lute and guitar), or on the arm (da braccio), or on the shoulder, but only rarely "da gamba". It's also become clear that thin shallow-ribbed viols, of any size, were very common, a norm, almost a missing branch of the family. So, thin-ribbed, small viols, played da braccio, two ideas that were generally though to be not of the viol tradition and domain, very definitely were. One picture added recently should please any of you who might still doubt that viols are yours, i.e. of lutes and lute players. This picture is from 1510, Italy, Marco Palmezzano, detail from Virgin Enthroned with Child and Saints. No waist-cuts on this puppy, and no mistaking what it is. http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_PalmezzanoMarco_1510_VirginChildSaints_det. jpg (grab that whole line, with the trailing .jpg, if the link breaks) Here's four composite sheets, a collected sampling of arm viols, 9 pics per: http://www.thecipher.com/braccio-viols_composite_01.jpg http://www.thecipher.com/braccio-viols_composite_02.jpg http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_composite_03.jpg http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_composite_04.jpg The section is now three pages wide (pages 3, 4, 5, of the viola da gamba section) and very graphic heavy (so they'll take time to load). http://www.thecipher.com/viola_da_gamba_cipher-3.html http://www.thecipher.com/viola_da_gamba_cipher-4.html http://www.thecipher.com/viola_da_gamba_cipher-5.html I've avoided almost all arm viols with "leaf-shaped" peg boxes because most would cry "lira da braccio" -- even though I'm certain that's were a good many standard small viols are hiding. There's quite a few sub-threads woven through out, e.g. the long thin narrow and shallow ribbed specie, and the short-chunky-necked group, plus viols played da gamba, but there's plenty of arm viols, 50 to 75 examples by now, inserted throughout. Along the way, I figured it was time to reclaim some (if not all) of the "Gaudenzio Ferrari at Soronno" group, the instruments and picture which the rest of the world has been claiming represents the first documented record of a complete "violin family" -- nope, sorry, I don't think so. this group http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_GFerrari_Saronno_1536_family.jpg Small, thin ribbed, played on the arm, 4, 5, or 6 strings -- are all _viol_ descriptors, we now know -- and the bass instrument has frets . . . fer Christ's sake ;') http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_GFerrari_Saronno_1536_cello.jpg I could be in error regarding some of these instruments, but even if you remove those few (whichever you like), there's still plenty left over, more than enough to have successfully made the point, and recaptured at least some part of the early playing field, a good start in any event. alrighty. Hope you enjoy the pictures. and Happy Father's Day -- whatever it is you've concieved, fathered, and nurtured along. thanks Roger To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>Michael, >The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower >than the other >allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't slightly >different diameters at each position. I've been doing this >for the last >year and it works fine. So I assume that for the time it takes the first fret to wear out, ( weeks or months? ) one must endure intonation problems. >..and confining. One may no longer experiment with >tempered fretting >as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, >you use >metal frets as a guitarmaker I'm sorry, I'm one who is non sympathetic to the idea of moving frets. I don't find it confining at all, in fact, it frees you up, to not constantly worry if your playing out of tune. because a fret has moved, or in a passing moment of tonal relativity, you think that ultimately, you've just managed to tune your lute. Your idea of a perfectly tuned lute, and mine, might be very different as the many systems of tuning attest too. However, your attitude clearly suggests that your system is superior to that of the guitarist. Good for you, Sean. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lutelist" Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > > > The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret > > closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the > > string to > > make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big > > intonation problems. > > > > Michael, > The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other > allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how > historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly > different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last > year and it works fine. > > > >As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret > > exactly at the correct point, this is very important. > > ..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting > as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use > metal frets as a guitarmaker. > > > > The string should > > only come it contact with the crest of the fret. > > This means that that same crest will constantly wear at the same point > on the gut string and this tends to wear it out quicker. Between the > lower action and doubled frets I'm certain one can get more milage from > gut strings on a lute than a guitar. (I wonder if the action and frets > were thought out differently from modern guitars when only gut strings > were used in, say, the 19th century?) > > > Any difference to this is > > a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness > > I'll suppose this includes a tolerance for equal temperment too. ;^) > > Sean > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> > > The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret > closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the > string to > make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big > intonation problems. > Michael, The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last year and it works fine. >As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret > exactly at the correct point, this is very important. ..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use metal frets as a guitarmaker. > The string should > only come it contact with the crest of the fret. This means that that same crest will constantly wear at the same point on the gut string and this tends to wear it out quicker. Between the lower action and doubled frets I'm certain one can get more milage from gut strings on a lute than a guitar. (I wonder if the action and frets were thought out differently from modern guitars when only gut strings were used in, say, the 19th century?) > Any difference to this is > a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness I'll suppose this includes a tolerance for equal temperment too. ;^) Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
> I would think that the neck angle for violin and cello resulted from > the high bridge needed for bowing. With a very high bridge, if you > don't angle the neck back (especially with the strings under very high > tension) you have an increasingly difficult time fretting as you move > down the neck. Dear Tim The big question is, double or single frets for violins and cellos? ;-) Just as a matter of detail, these fingerboards are convex at right angles to the strings, to corrspond more or less to the bridge curve, but the are slightly concave in the other plane. Concave to about a millimetre in the middle, but the curve has to be tested with a straight edge of about 2 inches to avoid any bumps that would cause the string to buzz when it is fretted on the virtual frets, if you see what I mean... Yours, Tony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
On Jun 19, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Craig Robert Pierpont wrote: >We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I would be > interested to see Martyn's historical evidence. The lute in Holbein's "The Ambassadors" very clearly has doubled frets. As realistically as this painting is done I believe he really saw them. This was pretty well explored a couple of years ago on this lutenet. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I would be interested to see Martyn's historical evidence. I have heard of using double fret loops for so long that I took it as a given that this was always an option of varying popularity, but the question being raised, I can't remember where I first got that information. (It would have been 30 years ago or more and some of the information available at that time was pretty sketchy.) Craig Craig R. Pierpont Another Era Lutherie www.anotherera.com Martyn Hodgson wrote: The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; Michael Thames wrote: In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. - Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Jon, Another thing to bear in mind is that a string, when pressed against the fret, never makes a perfectly straight plane. I mean that when your finger presses the string down in back of the fret, it produces a slight arch, not a straight line. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:56 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? > OK guys, > > I'm thoroughly confused. Someone said that the "action" is the height of the > string above the fret, others have other definitions. To me the action is a > subjective thing - the pressure needed on the string to make a clean sound. > That can vary on the same instrument with different players depending on > finger placement - close to the fret or in the middle. And on the distance > between the frets. (That may not be so clear on a lute, but on an > Appalachian dulcimer which is diatonic - so the low frets are very far > apart - it is clear. When one fingers a string one is making a small > triangle between the fret and the fret below, a bit of local string stretch > involved, and it is easier to fully depress at the midpoint between frets, > although not musically advisable). > > So my point is that action is a complicated interaction of string height, > string tension, and fret separation. And that is complicated by the large > "triangle" between the bridge and the nut, the middle of the string is > relatively "softer" than the nut or bridge ends - yet it has the greatest > range of vibration when played open, so has to have the greatest spacing > above the frets to avoid buzz (these latter have contradictory effects, so > the string should be higher above the fret at mid range - except that the > frets are closer spaced there, so they have a stiffer action due to the > "fret spacing effect".) > > Wow, what a lot of stuff to think of. Maybe we should have a multi-contured > neck? I don't think I'll try that. I'm over my head. This is a physics of > counter effects, and all must be considered. I think I'll let it stay > subjective and experimental. > > Best, Jon > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Martyn wrote, >The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' >'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop Martyn, In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:15 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:11:37 +0100 (BST) > From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > To: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop. > > This matter has been the subject of previous communications and you can read these in the archives. > > Re. concern about buzzing: - in practice, a double fret beds in very soon and has a real advantage in that the loop nearest to the finger takes most of the heavy wear allowing the other loop to retain a good cut-off profile. > > rgds > > Martyn Hodgson > > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Jon wrote, > > I see >the comment from > >Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and >that it makes no > >sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a >value to a wider > >fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless >they were wound > >together > > Jon the problem isn't the wildness of the fret, but where the string > makes contact. If you have two frets next to each other, and you press the > string down HARD, it will only hit the fret nearest to the nut and the > second fret will cause it to buzz or sound dull. > If you press the string with less pressure it will only ride off the > front fret. This variation is a mm or so for each fret, and will cause huge > intonation problems on a lute with a string length of 600mm which at that > point can't tolerate any inaccuracy. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "Jon Murphy" > To: ; "Lute builder Net" > ; "Martyn Hodgson" > ; "Michael Thames" > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:21 AM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? > > > > If an amateur may add to the thread (and by now you know I will anyway) > I'll > > toss in my oar. BTW - Martin, Martyn, Durbrow and Thames - sounds like a > law > > firm. The goal is the action. Neglecting any "tilt" in the neck (which > does > > exist in many) there is a natural effect to the midpoint of the string > (the > > 12th fret in almost every case). The "action", or pressure needed, is > easier > > the further from the nut. There is also the matter that the widest > > displacement of the string in its series of vibratations is at the > midpoint, > > the open tonic. (Ooops, as I write this I realize I haven't followed the > > thread from inception - so pardon if this is obvious). But it seems to me > > that the angle of higher at the bridge to lower at the nut, and with all > > frets the same height is natural to keep the finger action the same > through > > that range (to the octave). It is when you get above the octave that the > > problem occurs, as the action gets stiffer as you go from midpoint to > nearer > > the bridge (and the range of vibration, and therefore potential "buzz" > gets > > less). > > > > OK, a spec
Re: Built-in action?
Timothy, I think we've all been there done that, not fun. My sympathies go out to you and yours. But, one thing kind of puzzles me. You say you still angled the neck back. If one has a straight plane from the nut to the bridge lets say, the height of the first course above the fingerboard at the twelfth fret, is say 4mm, and the height at the nut is 1.40, that would put the height of the string at the bridge at 7.80 mm and that's just the first course, the sixth course would ride at 8.80 thus calling for an actual bridge that is in the ballpark of 10.8mm on the bass and 9.8mm on the treble...And that's if the plane is just STRAIGHT from the nut to the bridge!!! Angle the neck BACK as Lundberg suggests, and you end up with something that resembles the bowed family of instruments. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Timothy Motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:42 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? > Michael, > No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm > above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an > angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter > how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. > I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle > of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about > 1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had > angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's > advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and > re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge > seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting > problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with > problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued > (firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, > I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it > affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had > been intended for a client. > > Tim > > On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > > > >> I just got finished fixing a problem with the > >> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the > >> effect of neck angle will be > > > > Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about > > angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this > > doesn't > > work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the > > top. > > Michael Thames > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM > > Subject: Re: Built-in action? > > > > > >> Michael, > > Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer > > to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and > > bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to > > how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the > > strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the > > angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the > > soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the > > height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the > > neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the > > effect of neck angle will be. > > > > Tim > >> > >> > >> Original Message > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? > >> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 > >> > Vance wrote, > This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon > >> the action > of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and > >> how > >>> large > the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly. > >>> > >>> Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the > >> neck > >>> will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. > >> It has > >>> nothing to do with the action. > >>> Michael Thames > >>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward" > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM > >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? > >>> > >>> > > - Original Message - > From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM > Subject: Built-in action? > Hi Herbert: > > You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets > >> are, > > wh
Re: Built-in action?
Dear Timothy, I'm glad to hear you managed to solve the problem. You could also have replaced the fingerboard with one which was thicker at the nut end. I agree that trying to remove the neck and reglue it is an absolute last resort. Best wishes, Martin Timothy Motz wrote: >Michael, >No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm >above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an >angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter >how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. >I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle >of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about >1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had >angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's >advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and >re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge >seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting >problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with >problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued >(firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, >I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it >affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had >been intended for a client. > >Tim > >On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > > >>> I just got finished fixing a problem with the >>>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the >>>effect of neck angle will be >>> >>> >>Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about >>angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this >>doesn't >>work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the >>top. >>Michael Thames >>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>- Original Message - >>From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM >>Subject: Re: Built-in action? >> >> >> >> >>>Michael, >>> >>> >>Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer >>to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and >>bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to >>how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the >>strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the >>angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the >>soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the >>height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the >>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the >>effect of neck angle will be. >> >>Tim >> >> >>> Original Message >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: Built-in action? >>>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 >>> >>> >>> >Vance wrote, >This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon > > >>>the action >>> >>> >of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and > > >>>how >>> >>> large >the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly. > > Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the >>>neck >>> >>> will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. >>>It has >>> >>> nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? >- Original Message - >From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM >Subject: Built-in action? >Hi Herbert: > >You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets > > >>>are, >>> >>> >>which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret >>diameters. >> >> >This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon > > >>>the action >>> >>> >of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and > > >>>how >>> >>> large >the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If > > >>>this is >>> >>> >not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put > > >>>on the >>> >>> >Lute, the action will fo
Re: Built-in action?
I would think that the neck angle for violin and cello resulted from the high bridge needed for bowing. With a very high bridge, if you don't angle the neck back (especially with the strings under very high tension) you have an increasingly difficult time fretting as you move down the neck. Tim On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 08:24 PM, Howard Posner wrote: > Michael Thames wrote: > >> One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck >> angle, >> this doesn't effect the action, now does it. > > Of course it does. That's why the bridges on those instruments have > to be > so high: if they weren't the strings would lie on (or slide off the > sides > of) the fingerboard. If you were to lower the neck angle on a cello a > few > degrees, the action up the fingerboard would be impossibly high. > > HP > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
Re: Built-in action?
Michael, No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about 1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued (firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had been intended for a client. Tim On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > >> I just got finished fixing a problem with the >> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the >> effect of neck angle will be > > Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about > angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this > doesn't > work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the > top. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > - Original Message - > From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? > > >> Michael, > Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer > to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and > bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to > how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the > strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the > angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the > soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the > height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the > neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the > effect of neck angle will be. > > Tim >> >> >> Original Message >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? >> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 >> Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon >> the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and >> how >>> large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly. >>> >>> Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the >> neck >>> will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. >> It has >>> nothing to do with the action. >>> Michael Thames >>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets >> are, > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret > diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon >> the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and >> how >>> large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If >> this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put >> on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over >> time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming >> less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck >> higher. Vance Wood. > > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. > > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are > credited with the action of a lute. > > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ > of the frets are. > > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret > diameters. > > > > To get on or off this list see l
Fwd: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:11:37 +0100
(BST)
From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
To: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always
excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe
and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs:
'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who,
whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the
tying of a double loop.
This matter has been the subject of previous communications and you can read
these in the archives.
Re. concern about buzzing: - in practice, a double fret beds in very soon and
has a real advantage in that the loop nearest to the finger takes most of the
heavy wear allowing the other loop to retain a good cut-off profile.
rgds
Martyn Hodgson
Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jon wrote,
> I see >the comment from
>Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and >that it makes no
>sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a >value to a wider
>fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless >they were wound
>together
Jon the problem isn't the wildness of the fret, but where the string
makes contact. If you have two frets next to each other, and you press the
string down HARD, it will only hit the fret nearest to the nut and the
second fret will cause it to buzz or sound dull.
If you press the string with less pressure it will only ride off the
front fret. This variation is a mm or so for each fret, and will cause huge
intonation problems on a lute with a string length of 600mm which at that
point can't tolerate any inaccuracy.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Murphy"
To: ; "Lute builder Net"
; "Martyn Hodgson"
; "Michael Thames"
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> If an amateur may add to the thread (and by now you know I will anyway)
I'll
> toss in my oar. BTW - Martin, Martyn, Durbrow and Thames - sounds like a
law
> firm. The goal is the action. Neglecting any "tilt" in the neck (which
does
> exist in many) there is a natural effect to the midpoint of the string
(the
> 12th fret in almost every case). The "action", or pressure needed, is
easier
> the further from the nut. There is also the matter that the widest
> displacement of the string in its series of vibratations is at the
midpoint,
> the open tonic. (Ooops, as I write this I realize I haven't followed the
> thread from inception - so pardon if this is obvious). But it seems to me
> that the angle of higher at the bridge to lower at the nut, and with all
> frets the same height is natural to keep the finger action the same
through
> that range (to the octave). It is when you get above the octave that the
> problem occurs, as the action gets stiffer as you go from midpoint to
nearer
> the bridge (and the range of vibration, and therefore potential "buzz"
gets
> less).
>
> OK, a speculation for your consideration from a beginner in making these
> boxes. All comments welcome, I am here to learn. I see the comment from
> Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and that it makes no
> sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a value to a wider
> fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless they were wound
> together. Good playing practice suggests fingering close to the fret, but
as
> the fret distances gradually narrow up the fingerboard mightened it be
> possible to make the distance more uniform with wider frets at the lower
> end, after all the VL is fixed by the "north end" of the fret. (This is
pure
> speculation, I thought of it as I typed). And carrying that further the
> "action"/pressure is influenced by the distance between frets (try playing
a
> little charango tuned to high tension). Perhaps a wider fret would allow
> playing nearer the center of the fret spacing for an easier action.
>
> Again, all speculation. But with the knowledge that the factors ("tilt" of
> the neck, thickness of the frets, "angle of the dangle" between bridge and
> nut) all interact.
>
> Best, Jon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Thames"
> To: ; "Lute builder Net"
> ; "Martyn Hodgson"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>
>
> > >Again, we should always aim to refer to historical >information if we
are
> > to approach what they expected.
> >
> > >rgds
> >
> > >Martyn
> >
> > Didn't Dowland, ( I believe?) also recommend the use of 2 gut frets
> per
> > fret as well? A practice which makes no sense, and no one does
thesedays.
> >
> > Michael Thames
> > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Martyn Hodgson"
> > To: ; "Lute builder Net"
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1
